Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
questionmark

Look Mama, no diamond saw

878 posts in this topic

Aagh! I give up. I suppose it's best to turn this over to you, then.

Please submit the qualified research proving ancient Egyptians smelted iron and produced manmade iron implements prior to the Late Period or Ptolemaic Period.

The ball is in your court.

I keep telling you, although you just DON'T listen, that evidence from that time has rusted away and is gone. Do I need to repeat myself again, while just in this post alone. Hello? Do you hear me now? You want evidence that only exists in the remanufactured items such as in pictures that you just posted.

OK the ball is in my end of the field, aye, well than it's fourth and goul at the three, with twelve seconds counting down, but no one on either team is listening. Do you know what that means? That's right Quarterback sneak, it's time to punch it in.. no wait the nose guard knows the call so he pitches it... and SLAM the DB was there awaiting. Doesn't change anything other than the final score. However, since they were already in the lead and that pitch was fumbled, the safety picked it up any returned it for a comeback victory. Sometimes the outcome is alarming... :no: I paid my dues, time after time, done my sentence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you just missed the last post from Kmt. The evidence is not gone. Steel rusted into oxidation. Iron has been utilitzed,may times. Harte is about as funny as a box of rocks. A good laugh might do himm good. Nevertheless, he can't even put in his two cents worth in a direct quote. It's easier to just 'ignore the truth' and anyone in disagreement with the mindset, so what? Hogwash, I say get over yourselves. The early days of the first Egyptian dynasties forged iron, whether it was fromm asteroids or the ground potential no matter. It was for a short period in history turned into steel, used as tools, and it IS GONE. Most reamining impliments were made into weapons and while some remanufactured to the best of the ability of those later generations, it is still mostly all gone from a representation of the originality.

Well I guess will haft agree to disagree, Time Spy. I'm only applying pure critical thinking on this subject matter, and in this case, my critical thinking and logic tells me their right on this one. But if that irritates you, sorry you're feeling that way, but your argument hasn't really convenieced me. I'm not being bias towards you or ignoring what you say, it just doesn't make sense to me (I just don't think your accounting for every possibility), given what I know and learned working with different metals over the years; and what I've found just by digging in the dirt. Anyway, I have to go with what make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep telling you, although you just DON'T listen, that evidence from that time has rusted away and is gone. Do I need to repeat myself again, while just in this post alone. Hello? Do you hear me now? You want evidence that only exists in the remanufactured items such as in pictures that you just posted.

...

[media=]

[/media]

Oh, I'm listening, Time Spy. I read every word of every post you direct at me (and in this case I don't have much to say for the second paragraph in your last reply to me, because frankly I have no idea what it's supposed to mean).

But SHOUTING isn't making your argument any clearer or more convincing. You're claiming iron was forged from the "early days of the first Egyptian dynasties" and yet there is no evidence to suggest this. Then you say the "evidence from that time has rusted away and is gone," so how do you know iron was produced in the Early Bronze Age if there's nothing at all left to prove that? Your own argument is self-defeating.

Given that you're not an archaeologist with field experience in Egypt, nor a researcher specializing in metallurgy of the Near East Bronze Age, your word alone is insufficient—even when SHOUTED, believe it or not. Something written wrong and something SHOUTED wrong is still wrong, regardless of volume (LOL I think you get the idea that typing in caps is a pet peeve of mine). This said, you're still claiming that it's a fact that the early Egyptians were producing iron, so it is incumbent upon you to present to us the research of a specialist which corroborates your claim. Your word alone cannot do it.

Can you hear me now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kmt sesh, the idea of a 45 ft diameter circular saw is indeed not remotely possible as you would need to cast bronze of say 1/2" thick at least and the blade would have to clear a typical block of say 1meter minimum so not very likely. What I was referring to was the possibilty of using a straight saw attached to one or both ends of a pivoting beam that could then be used in a reciprocating fashion to cut the stones. Again not very likely but at least possible.....My point on Dunn's book is that you may have a small grain of truth in what might otherwise be a truckload of crapola. Conversely, even the most well thought of theories may have a flaw or two somewehere at their base. Take quantum physics, lots of belief but there are still some missing particles out there. Most folks (me included) have difficulty with the conventional thinking of constructing the GP out of 1million plus blocks in something like twenty years with ramps, pounding stones, bronze chisels and lots of manpower. Sure seems like something is still missing. I hope its found soon but the idea is to keep looking (leave no stone unturned).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time Spy, you are shamefully blind to the truth, and have a capacity to hand-wave away evidence that is more monumental than Khufu's pyramid. It has become apparent that no matter how erudite or explanatory the evidence that better minds than your own helpfully pass your way, you will continually move the goalposts and blither in an ever more shrill and self-congratulatory fashion.

Threads like this can be very educational and interesting, yet they have to be spoiled by the I-know-better-than-the-evidence/facts/demonstrable truth/evidence from the culture itself/etc crowd, which you,through obstinate intransigence or stupidity, embody. And it is not a position you should be proud of.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you just missed the last post from Kmt. The evidence is not gone. Steel rusted into oxidation. Iron has been utilitzed,may times. Harte is about as funny as a box of rocks. A good laugh might do himm good. Nevertheless, he can't even put in his two cents worth in a direct quote. It's easier to just 'ignore the truth' and anyone in disagreement with the mindset, so what? Hogwash, I say get over yourselves. The early days of the first Egyptian dynasties forged iron, whether it was fromm asteroids or the ground potential no matter. It was for a short period in history turned into steel, used as tools, and it IS GONE. Most reamining impliments were made into weapons and while some remanufactured to the best of the ability of those later generations, it is still mostly all gone from a representation of the originality.

There are several difficulties with this.

First, there's the beads Kmt mentioned. 5 millenia and these tiny little things didn't rust away to nothing. Given the same conditions, a bulkier item experiencing the same rate of corrosion should still leave some significant traces then even after another 5 millenia.

Second, there's the artifact from the shaft itself. If it does in fact date from the construction of the pyramid and if that date is as old as claimed, The fact that it exists at all would tend to argue against the complete destruction of all such artifacts from the period.

Third, there's kmt's point about traces of rust. Iron, once oxidized, cannot oxidize further, so traces of even complete disintegrated iron artifacts remain in the soil as anomalous patches of rust. It has been possible in many archeological deigs to virtually reconstruct artifacts entirely from the shape of the rust traces left behind. If nothing else, the very presence of the rust speaks to the former presence of an iron artifact, yet we find none. One would think at the very least such a valued material would make it's way into grave goods even if scarce and certainly if not, given the other sorts of commodities which did.

Fourth, This is getting away from the apparent evidence of bronze usage in relation to stone cutting. If they were using iron or full-blown steel, why are there traces of verdigris in the various borings, etc, but not the aforementioned rust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm listening, Time Spy. I read every word of every post you direct at me (and in this case I don't have much to say for the second paragraph in your last reply to me, because frankly I have no idea what it's supposed to mean).

But SHOUTING isn't making your argument any clearer or more convincing. You're claiming iron was forged from the "early days of the first Egyptian dynasties" and yet there is no evidence to suggest this. Then you say the "evidence from that time has rusted away and is gone," so how do you know iron was produced in the Early Bronze Age if there's nothing at all left to prove that? Your own argument is self-defeating.

Given that you're not an archaeologist with field experience in Egypt, nor a researcher specializing in metallurgy of the Near East Bronze Age, your word alone is insufficient—even when SHOUTED, believe it or not. Something written wrong and something SHOUTED wrong is still wrong, regardless of volume (LOL I think you get the idea that typing in caps is a pet peeve of mine). This said, you're still claiming that it's a fact that the early Egyptians were producing iron, so it is incumbent upon you to present to us the research of a specialist which corroborates your claim. Your word alone cannot do it.

Can you hear me now?

KMT, I'm not shouting at you. I told you this once before. Capitalization is an emphasis on the point I'm trying to make, so to make myself understood. Shouting is changing the size of the font to huge and then adding exclamation points. I keep telling you that your input is unique and apreciated. I have to admit sometimes I have trouble desciphering the arguments between yourself and Scott. Your the expert in later day dynasty arifacts. I just 'see' things in 'my own' perspective. You know what I mean. Oviously you and others such as Purifier (who I commend on his respectful response in agreement to disagree) have mad this quite clear. However, find them or not there are others who believe that the ancient dynasties responsible for construction of these great monoliths were not only more endowed than their predescessors in the use of steel, but were also physically far superior. Linking you to those who agree just start threads that we have agreed to disagree upon already. I don't know what else to say.

The point of the second paragraph that you didn't understand comes right out of the last chapter of my book TIMEDRIVE. It seems as a metaphor, that when all else is about to fail and those who are seemingly winning the game, don't see that the defense knows what's coming and is already convinced of a win, even when it looks like all else has failed. Next thing you know, game over, and EVERYONE has to 'go back' and take that 'little look' themselves at the 'game tape', somewhat like one more flash of a brilliant white light as the camera refocuses on the scene and the space time continuum hesitates in replay. Just a thought to reconsider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Time Spy, you are shamefully blind to the truth, and have a capacity to hand-wave away evidence that is more monumental than Khufu's pyramid. It has become apparent that no matter how erudite or explanatory the evidence that better minds than your own helpfully pass your way, you will continually move the goalposts and blither in an ever more shrill and self-congratulatory fashion.

Threads like this can be very educational and interesting, yet they have to be spoiled by the I-know-better-than-the-evidence/facts/demonstrable truth/evidence from the culture itself/etc crowd, which you,through obstinate intransigence or stupidity, embody. And it is not a position you should be proud of.

Here's a thought for you newcomer. The only one interested in the 'goalposts' would be those ready to kick'. I'm looking at the opposite goal line. Untell you get a better understanding to what the hell I'm even talking about, (and have read the playbook thread after thread throughout the forum...), why not just sit the sidelines and watch the game from a fans point of view. Once you become a veteran and know what you're actually up against then go beg the coach to come in for your chance to get slammed.

Edited by Time Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at work and don't have access to my library so I'm working from memory, as well as from my experience with the two Egyptian exhibits in Chicago where I work as a docent. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, jules99, but a lot of drill points have in fact been found. They range in composition from flint to diorite (the latter of which would've been the kind used to drill out the coffers of sarcophagi). We have examples of these on display at both museums.

Saws are certainly rarer but as I recall some examples have been recovered in archaeological excavations (I don't believe either of the museums in which I work have examples in their collections, however). Just the same, numerous depictions on tomb walls show men using saws. They're depicted cutting everything from wood to stone. The noticeable difference is, saws for cutting wood have teeth while those for stone do not. Abrasives were used with stone-cutting saws.

I wouldn't trust Dunn's conclusions with these things. The Rosetta Stone is Ptolemaic in date and thus by this point iron tools and technology had been introduced into Egypt, but where is the evidence for the powering and mechanics of such a saw? There's a lot more to it than just a blade. How was the blade used?

Hi kmt_sesh

Sorry for the delay in replying

"Since no actual drilling tube has ever been discovered in Egypt, the material used for the tubes remains unknown."

http://hbar.phys.msu...nold/arnold.htm

I think its surmised from residue found that the tube drills were made from bronze or copper..

Also I remember reading an account from Pliny stating whereabouts in the ancient world the finest quality abrasive sands were located and that there was a market for them...like an abrasives industry :) though this was related to polishing Roman marble. Im not sure whether sand is 100% agreed upon as the abrasive used by the AEs for cutting and drilling, other possibilities might include emery or diamond.

The so called Rosetta stone I mentioned is claimed to originate from Abu Rawash , Djedefre 3rd king 4th dynasty c2500 bc, not Ptolemaic. Dunn called it The Rosetta stone because I think he feels it might lead to a better understanding of ancient stone working techniques....

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Speaking of powering and mechanics Petrie makes an interesting observation regarding a diorite bowl;

"One piece found at Gizeh, No.14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off of its centring, recentred imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centrings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearance could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface."

http://www.touregypt.net/petrie/c19.htm

It would be interesting to hear what stone turners would make of this. To me it seems curious that the old turning marks from the prior centering of the work remained. With a hand steadied tool and working in diorite I would have thought the judder and vibration would have removed all the old turning marks. It seems an unbelievably steady hand would be required but I might be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several difficulties with this.

First, there's the beads Kmt mentioned. 5 millenia and these tiny little things didn't rust away to nothing. Given the same conditions, a bulkier item experiencing the same rate of corrosion should still leave some significant traces then even after another 5 millenia.

Second, there's the artifact from the shaft itself. If it does in fact date from the construction of the pyramid and if that date is as old as claimed, The fact that it exists at all would tend to argue against the complete destruction of all such artifacts from the period.

Third, there's kmt's point about traces of rust. Iron, once oxidized, cannot oxidize further, so traces of even complete disintegrated iron artifacts remain in the soil as anomalous patches of rust. It has been possible in many archeological deigs to virtually reconstruct artifacts entirely from the shape of the rust traces left behind. If nothing else, the very presence of the rust speaks to the former presence of an iron artifact, yet we find none. One would think at the very least such a valued material would make it's way into grave goods even if scarce and certainly if not, given the other sorts of commodities which did.

Fourth, This is getting away from the apparent evidence of bronze usage in relation to stone cutting. If they were using iron or full-blown steel, why are there traces of verdigris in the various borings, etc, but not the aforementioned rust?

What are you talking about? There are traces of iron oxide found all throughout the region. However, anything that would be that old is undistinguishable. The only reason the later date artifacts (which are very few, and thousands of years later) are still kept to display is because they were preserved. Even artifacts made later than these are long gone in the ground. PFFTT, WHOOOSH, 'we' haven't found ANY. Maybe YOU should go look yourself. Have you not been paying attention, here/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What are you talking about? There are traces of iron oxide found all throughout the region. However, anything that would be that old is undistinguishable.

There's a bit of a difference between random iron oxide and anthropogenicaly associated deposits retaining the outline of the artifact, or lining a cut in rock not otherwise containing iron. If you have examples of same however I welcome correction.

The only reason the later date artifacts (which are very few, and thousands of years later) are still kept to display is because they were preserved. Even artifacts made later than these are long gone in the ground.

And yet, there they are. Again, what's another few thousand years for something that isn't even supposed to last half that long in the first place?

The question is raised as well that if they had this implied advanced level of technology, why didn't they invent stainless steel or it's equivalent?

(As an aside, I understand you're using it for emphasis instead of bolding or underlining but to reiterate, by common internet convention, using caps other than where needed has been and is interpreted as shouting by pretty much everybody going back to the old BBS days. Doesn't bother really me. Hell, I can't remember the HTML code for the other stuff myself without the buttons to help me, but you're more liable to run into trouble doing it than not.)

Edited by Oniomancer
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a bit of a difference between random iron oxide and anthropogenicaly associated deposits retaining the outline of the artifact, or lining a cut in rock not otherwise containing iron. If you have examples of same however I welcome correction.

And yet, there they are. Again, what's another few thousand years for something that isn't even supposed to last half that long in the first place?

The question is raised as well that if they had this implied advanced level of technology, why didn't they invent stainless steel or it's equivalent?

(As an aside, I understand you're using it for emphasis instead of bolding or underlining but to reiterate, by common internet convention, using caps other than where needed has been and is interpreted as shouting by pretty much everybody going back to the old BBS days. Doesn't bother really me. Hell, I can't remember the HTML code for the other stuff myself without the buttons to help me, but you're more liable to run into trouble doing it than not.)

Well you can most definitely consider me 'old school', seems quite obvious doesn't it? I don't like to shout, I'd rather TRY to be funny (understand the emphasis, I know no other way). You heard the teaching old dog new tricks thing, right, well no one has been tossing me any treats, no what I mean?

Ayway steel is steel, stainless would be accurate, but none the less obsolete from that time period. That which was became weapons, you know swords???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I get a chance to exercise my English degree. The correct way to provide emphasis in a line of type is to italicize the word to be emphasized.

But look who's talking? I'm an old fart who hates how texting has butchered the English language. The kids today would call me a fossil. Well, naturally they would call me lots of other, more colorful things but the censor software would probably bleep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I get a chance to exercise my English degree. The correct way to provide emphasis in a line of type is to italicize the word to be emphasized.

But look who's talking? I'm an old fart who hates how texting has butchered the English language. The kids today would call me a fossil. Well, naturally they would call me lots of other, more colorful things but the censor software would probably bleep it.

The truth is I'm old school, an old fart as well, that never really got much of a grip on the English language, until his editor published his book, but anyway.... The kids today are way off on a tangent/ They don't even know what old school is, not to mention hard times. I remember the first IBM and Commodores, tape drives and punch cards, come on I'm no baby. Grandma lived through the great depression. I remember the stories. We didn't much do more than go to the woods, fish, and waste time. Computers were a thing of the future, and a cell phone was like a tricorder. Dad seen the first color television, that replaced the radio sitcoms. Hell, Grandpa was the first HAM operator in the entire region. Yeah, maybe I've witnessed the entire information age come into being and understand, but I'm still a fossil as well. Cheers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I get a chance to exercise my English degree. The correct way to provide emphasis in a line of type is to italicize the word to be emphasized.

But look who's talking? I'm an old fart who hates how texting has butchered the English language. The kids today would call me a fossil. Well, naturally they would call me lots of other, more colorful things but the censor software would probably bleep it.

Only problem with that is italics doesn't stand out too well, especially in the site default font.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only problem with that is italics doesn't stand out too well, especially in the site default font.

Good point, that's why I always capitalize. I don't mean to scream, and I realize that most don't even listen to what I say. Still when I try to emphasize a point, I go with all caps. Screaming won't get me anywhere. I just appreciate the input, and the fact that agree or disagree somewhat comes back to reply, seriously...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One piece found at Gizeh, No.14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off of its centring, recentred imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centrings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearance could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface."

http://www.touregypt.../petrie/c19.htm

It would be interesting to hear what stone turners would make of this. To me it seems curious that the old turning marks from the prior centering of the work remained. With a hand steadied tool and working in diorite I would have thought the judder and vibration would have removed all the old turning marks. It seems an unbelievably steady hand would be required but I might be wrong.

It does not necessarily have been turned in the sense that there was a non-abrasive method used, somewhere in this thread there is a modern abrasive method turning device. Having said that, we know at least from wood items that the 4th dynasty Egyptians had methods to turn materials, wherein we have not found any device from their time, or if we found it we did not recognize it as a lathe. Much later images of lathes start to appear, but that would be 2000 years off the pyramid time frame we always seem to get stuck on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi kmt_sesh

Sorry for the delay in replying

"Since no actual drilling tube has ever been discovered in Egypt, the material used for the tubes remains unknown."

http://hbar.phys.msu...nold/arnold.htm

I think its surmised from residue found that the tube drills were made from bronze or copper..

Also I remember reading an account from Pliny stating whereabouts in the ancient world the finest quality abrasive sands were located and that there was a market for them...like an abrasives industry :) though this was related to polishing Roman marble. Im not sure whether sand is 100% agreed upon as the abrasive used by the AEs for cutting and drilling, other possibilities might include emery or diamond.

The so called Rosetta stone I mentioned is claimed to originate from Abu Rawash , Djedefre 3rd king 4th dynasty c2500 bc, not Ptolemaic. Dunn called it The Rosetta stone because I think he feels it might lead to a better understanding of ancient stone working techniques....

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Speaking of powering and mechanics Petrie makes an interesting observation regarding a diorite bowl;

"One piece found at Gizeh, No.14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off of its centring, recentred imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centrings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearance could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface."

http://www.touregypt.../petrie/c19.htm

It would be interesting to hear what stone turners would make of this. To me it seems curious that the old turning marks from the prior centering of the work remained. With a hand steadied tool and working in diorite I would have thought the judder and vibration would have removed all the old turning marks. It seems an unbelievably steady hand would be required but I might be wrong.

If it was entirely hand-held like in the wood turning image show previously. Most lathes however normally use a tool rest, which only requires the tool to be held against the force of rotation. This example is unusual in as much as a properly mounted workpiece on a lathe is practically self-trueing. It's hard to miss something like that being out of true unless both operators are half blind. Stone being what it is, you can't just drive a spur center into it so you'd have to either drill a pilot hole or chuck it in place, even if only with a simple jam chuck, both of which should have held the workpiece true. The only way I can personally conceive of this need to re-center happening is if they just mounted it between two points and the piece wandered under spin, which argues in favor of a more primitive set-up and against a modern-style lathe, or they hit a flaw and part of it blew up, forcing them to start over.

At any rate, presumably the piece was unfinished or the marks wouldn't have been left. The fact that the work was abandoned or considered "good enough" is significant in this regard if one assumes they had high-speed equipment that could cut stone like butter. And this is not the only slightly lopsided Egyptian stone vessel out there. Also, while this does suggest a powered apparatus, it's still conceivable the work could've been done by hand using something similar to a cooper's croze, which follows the contour of an outside curve:

http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&biw=987&bih=609&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=cooper%27s+croze&oq=cooper%27s+croze&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=img.12...0.0.1.46224.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.nukXJLjaHTw

It should be pointed out that Petrie was trained as a surveyor, not an engineer, and some of his statement in that area subsequently don't hold up, such as his belief that a drill would require enormous pressure to cut at a high rate of speed, when only force to maintain RPM's is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

copper and abrasive are enough to cut anything. i used to cut telescope mirror blanks out of glass sheets for my father when he used to build reflector telescopes. we used to cut 30 inch diameter blanks 4or 5 inches thick by using copper strips bent into a perfect circle and mounted into plaster disks (to hold them in place...it was the easiest method. the copper had little cuts in it to allow water and abrasive to be carried and cut material to be extracted. we used to have the whole deal mounted to a motor and then stand there and add "grit" as he called it. the glass would be cut in a couple hours at a very slow RPM. youd think that the copper would be worn down faster than the glass, but since the copper is soft, the grit gets embedded into it at the cutting edge by friction and scratches the glass or other harder material.

all the ancients would have needed is copper or softer metal and abrasives, hell why not gold or silver.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was entirely hand-held like in the wood turning image show previously. Most lathes however normally use a tool rest, which only requires the tool to be held against the force of rotation. This example is unusual in as much as a properly mounted workpiece on a lathe is practically self-trueing. It's hard to miss something like that being out of true unless both operators are half blind. Stone being what it is, you can't just drive a spur center into it so you'd have to either drill a pilot hole or chuck it in place, even if only with a simple jam chuck, both of which should have held the workpiece true. The only way I can personally conceive of this need to re-center happening is if they just mounted it between two points and the piece wandered under spin, which argues in favor of a more primitive set-up and against a modern-style lathe, or they hit a flaw and part of it blew up, forcing them to start over.

At any rate, presumably the piece was unfinished or the marks wouldn't have been left. The fact that the work was abandoned or considered "good enough" is significant in this regard if one assumes they had high-speed equipment that could cut stone like butter. And this is not the only slightly lopsided Egyptian stone vessel out there. Also, while this does suggest a powered apparatus, it's still conceivable the work could've been done by hand using something similar to a cooper's croze, which follows the contour of an outside curve:

The ancient Egyptians might have started with a roughed out piece of rock in the basic shape of a bowl, with a ground flat base, a method still used today. One technique is to glue a wooden board or similar to the vessels flat base and then center it on the lathe. If the glue bond gave way the work would need recentering, in the case of this vessel it was performed inaccurately..

The fact is that the device turned true to both centers so was at least accurate enough to do that.

Theres no real need to get into powered mechanisation, possibily a millstone that could be turned by hand would supply the weight and give enough momentum to keep the job turning and allow work to be done.

http://gb.fotolibra.com/images/previews/330983-dendera-carved-millstone.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3rd dynasty Granite vase in Cairo museum

34djzhx.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 dynasty drill hole, ofcourse granite.

olr28.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 dynasty drill hole, ofcourse granite.

olr28.jpg

Ehm, yes. So your point is that they could not make it or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ehm, yes. So your point is that they could not make it or something?

Or something. :yes:

For your stance and point of view they couldnt done vase in 646 post.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or something. :yes:

For your stance and point of view they couldnt done vase in 646 post.

Where you ignored Swedes post by your traditional method... now that you say it, yes I remember

And the core above shows exactly what we have been telling you all the time: it was done wit a tube and abrasives, similar methods are still used today if you want to drill something really hard...like carborundum or diamond.

But feel free to put your fingers back in your ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.